Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is.
I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Why are there evolutionists?

Why are there evolutionists? It appears that not one can defend the position. IOW it appears that the position of evolutionist rests almost entirely on faith.

Sure we see natural selection in action but everything we observe in biology just leads to wobbling stability.

The challenge would be to provide any biological/ genetic data that demonstrates a population can get through that wobbling stability. However it is a given that no such data will be provided.

Take blipey for example. The best it can do is to say that the vast majority of scientists accept it so that is good enough for it. But blipey is nothing but a clown- meaning it has a diminished capacity for dealing with reality. To it reality = drivel. That much is confirmed by its posts in my blog. My guess is that is why it chooses to be an evolutionist.

Dr Theobald tries to make a Scientific Case for Common Descent, yet he doesn't mention a mechanism and his "evidences" can also be used to support a Common Design. IOW his "evidences" are very subjective and can neither be objectively tested nor verified as being exclusive to Common Descent.

I used to be part of that lot but then I grew up and actually looked at reality. And reality demonstrates that no one even knows if the transformations required (if life's diversity arose from one or a few populations of single-celled organisms) are even possible.

The only defense of the theory is to try to discredit anyone who speaks out against it. That alone should tell most objective people that the theory is nonsense.

85 Comments:

Why are there scientists? Evolution is fundamentally as well established as anything in science can be. The details may be uncertain but as Stephen Gould said, ""Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome." Compared to your flat earth belief, we have science on our side.

A critique of Theobald's evidences...yet he doesn't mention a mechanism and his "evidences" can also be used to support a Common Design.

Theobald Responds to Ashby Camp's "Critique"

Theobald is brilliant and refuted Ashby's logical fallacies. Anyone who reads this article knows that evolution is based on the observable. ID is just religion, and doesn't make predictions. False. Theobald doesn't need to mention a mechanism. Guess you didn't read what he said. He also mentioned beforehand some mechanisms such as genetic drift and all that.

However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open...Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms.

I used to be part of that lot but then I grew up and actually looked at reality.

Leaving aside the sarcastic comment, Theobald has a small discussion on whether there are any other viable scientific explanations. His argument is nothing new, and like bipley, the majority of scientific acceptance means that evolution is true.

Furthermore, he argues that there are no scientifically alternative explanations for four reasons. One reason is because Common Descent makes predictions. I don't know about you, but that is circular reasoning. The point of alternative theories are for explaining that data but apparently Theobald has no problem in assuming this. Other explanations are not possible!

Second reason, is that "no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found". However, I never knew that contradictory evidence must be presented for there to be alternative theories. Evolution is a smorgasbord which can accommodate anything so I am not surprised either way.

3rd reason says "competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data". Yet throughout his article, he never even back this assertion up. As all evolutionists do, they assume evolution as true and the only explanation in order to make such a claim. Facts don't speak for themselves. The data is simply given an evolutionary interpretation and most of that has just been accommodated by evolution as evidence.

4th reason says "many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data". Common descent is untestable! They merely assume that evolution is the cause of the data that they see. Intelligent Design is testable and so is a young earth. Whether the scientific majority or Theobald don't accept it as such doesn't change anything. I am happy that Theobald has at least demonstrated that evolution is untestable.

Gould is right in that there is only one reality behind what we are observing and that reality isn't going to cease to be just because we haven't figured it out.

However imagination is no substitute for that reality. Evolutionists seem to think that imagination is a legitimate substitute.

Some think that since they can imagine a multiverse scenario all possibilities are inevitable- including the oririgin and subsequent evolution of living organisms.

The point of this thread is, it appears to me, that the majority of evolutionists are evolutionists because some alleged majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution and Common Descent. And that is just a sad position to hold.

But the problem is these same sheep also feel it is necessary to misrepresent all alternatives to their belief just so they feel OK about blindly following strangers.

It would be safe to say that most evos haven't had an original thought in their entire life. But they are the Borg and we will be assimilated...

So you're saying you can't provide the data? You know, to back up this thing that you said:

"...because some alleged majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution and Common Descent."

Are you aware of what the word "alleged" means?

Are you aware that by saying that an "alleged majority" of scientists accept ToE and CD that you are implying that there is serious doubt as to whether or not a majority of scientists accept ToE and CD.

So, again--I'm being pretty polite and asking a not-too-difficult thing--please back up your claim. Show us that a majority of scientists don't actually accept ToE and CD.

Show us that a majority of scientists don't actually accept ToE and CD.

Again, that is not my claim.

I never said, thought nor implied any such thing.

I cannot make it any clearer than that.

blipey appears to take some issue with the following:

The point of this thread is, it appears to me, that the majority of evolutionists are evolutionists because some alleged majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution and Common Descent. And that is just a sad position to hold.

which is in reference to the following from the OP:

Take blipey for example. The best it can do is to say that the vast majority of scientists accept it so that is good enough for it. But blipey is nothing but a clown- meaning it has a diminished capacity for dealing with reality. To it reality = drivel. That much is confirmed by its posts in my blog. My guess is that is why it chooses to be an evolutionist.

Context is important. So blipey ignores the context.

But anyway- the word alleged, in "...because some alleged majority of scientists...", is used because I have never seen the data that included ALL scientists in the world. All I have is mostly anonymous say-so to go by. Therefore "alleged" is the correct word.

And not only would it be key to interview all scientists in the world about their acceptance the interview must also cover the "why", as in provide the scientific data requested.

IOW it's not enough to have a scientist accept something. They. too, have to say why and be able to back it up with real scientific data- leave the imaginary nonsense at the door.

Are you aware that by saying that an "alleged majority" of scientists accept ToE and CD that you are implying that there is serious doubt as to whether or not a majority of scientists accept ToE and CD.

What you infer should never be conflated with what I imply. However I understand that English may not be your strong language and you are a proven twisted freak...

Great. So that's cleared up. You do accept that the majority of scientists accept ToE and CD.

That's all I wanted. A clear understanding that a majority of scientist (in fact, the GREAT majority of scientists) do in fact accept ToE and CD.

By saying that there is only an alleged majority, you use the old creationist tactic of mis-information. Indeed, context is important. It's important because words actual mean something--not that you would understand that.

So, once again, can it be said that Joe Gallien believes to the best of his knowledge that the majority of scientists accept ToE and CD?

A clear understanding that a majority of scientist (in fact, the GREAT majority of scientists) do in fact accept ToE and CD.

Do you have any data to back that up?

That would be nice. The data should include the names and specialty of the scientist, as well as their explanation of why they accept it. Included in that explanation should be the data I asked for.

That way we could see if they accept it on faith or for scientific reasons. Only scientific reasons will be accepted- IOW if a scientist accepts it and can't provide the data requested then they obviously accept it on faith.

I see blipey still can't understand simple explanations:

But anyway- the word alleged, in "...because some alleged majority of scientists...", is used because I have never seen the data that included ALL scientists in the world. All I have is mostly anonymous say-so to go by. Therefore "alleged" is the correct word.

No surprise there...

BTW blipey- I also accept the fact that not one scientist can provide the data I requested. IOW any scientist who says the accept the ToE and CD do so only on faith.

But anyway- the word alleged, in "...because some alleged majority of scientists...", is used because I have never seen the data that included ALL scientists in the world. All I have is mostly anonymous say-so to go by. Therefore "alleged" is the correct word.

And not only would it be key to interview all scientists in the world about their acceptance the interview must also cover the "why", as in provide the scientific data requested.

IOW it's not enough to have a scientist accept something. They. too, have to say why and be able to back it up with real scientific data- leave the imaginary nonsense at the door.

IOW once again you pulled a turd from your ass, liked the smell and decided to post it.

Next blipey really demonstrates how big of an asshole it really is:

Because in your comment 2 ago, you said you will accept no evidence as being valid:

Joe G: I also accept the fact that not one scientist can provide the data I requested.

What blipey stated in no way follows from what I posted. IOW there isn't anything in what I posted that woulds allow an objective person to infer that I "will accept no evidence as being valid". That is just more made-up nonsense. Par for the course though.

Just because they can't provide it doesn't mean I won't accept it. That's just plain stupidity- something that blipey keeps demonstrating.

blipey is just another blind sheep. Thanks for the confirmation- as if I needed more evidence...

Keep twisting blipey. You are the best resource to show how vacuous the theory of evolution really is. I couldn't do it all by myself and all the othet loser evos have run away.

or scientists or all scientists accepting something has as much weight as blipey accepting something if those scientists cannot provide valid scientific reasoning (reasoning backed by scientific data) for their acceptance.

IOW it is a hollow acceptance- hollow just like the theory of evolution.

"Why are there scientists? Evolution is fundamentally as well established as anything in science can be."

Can you provide evidence for your claim? How do the quantitative predictions of _evolution_ (as opposed to, say, genetics, which was founded by a creationist) stack up against, say, physics or chemistry? Please be specific and show how numerically more accurate evolutionary theory is in predicting phenomena, including the number of significant figures it is able to predict, compared to these other areas.

Pay specific attention to the qualitative difference of epistemic justifications he makes with respect to evolutionary claims and biochemical/genetic claims. You will find that the former are almost always just hand-waving mythologies about origins, while the latter he actually takes the class through a process of having to prove each and every idea. It is really telling to listen to in that regard.

blipey:How is it that you actually answer any questions in your life, Joe?

I answer questions on a daily basis. Trouble-shooting is all about answering questions. Dealing withn a 4 year old is also all about answering questions. And if that isn't enough for ya, I am also married.

My mother-in-law died yesterday (what a way to start the winter) and I have been asked to answer many questions. Why? I never met the lady.

blipey:Do you just never use the words yes or no?

Color. Yes or no is so black and white.

For example I was pumping gas (self-serve) one day and a woman asked me if I knew where a certain nursing home was, and I said "Yes". However that wasn't good enough for her even though it was obviously a "yes or no" question.

What you shouldn't do, blipey, is to conflate how I treat you to how I act in the real world.

Ya see you are nuthin' but a freakin' clown and an obvious parasite. IOW you get what you deserve.

What lesson plan? I would settle for a simple showing of two pro-ID videos: The Privileged Plannet and Unlocking the Mystery of Life, along with the books "The Privileged Planet" and perhaps "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" being made readily available to students.

Teachers at public schools are not yet qualified to teach ID but they should be qualified to discuss the data presented during their regular science classes.

And at this point in time that is all I ask for. That should be education enough to stop the blatant ID ignorance that is rampant, at least on the internet.

IOW blipey my "lesson plan" would be to present the data along with the options for the data- how did what we are observing arise? Was it by design or sheer dumb luck? Are there any other options?

Then have a discussion in which a method of testing can be hammered out. Then do it.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the way the non-home schooled are educated. If you're going to present something at a school, you'll need a lesson plan.

So, fine, show The Privileged Planet, but under what lesson plan?

Why are you taking up valuable educational time with a film? If I were to have Richard Dawkins in to speak to the class, I would need a lesson plan in order to do it. Hell, when I present school assembly shows, I provide the schools with the lesson plans for the show.

So, what specific educational lessons and state criteria are we getting from your ID introductions?

"IOW the life that exists today wasn't directly designed. It is the result of generations undergoing evolutionary processes."

Hoorah! So evolution does occur! It's only Origin of Life issues where ID and evolutionary theory part ways? Then I think we are more in agreement than I first thought - neither you nor I know how life originated and, as you so rightly pointed out, this is what science should help us to do. But since we both agree that evolution is responsible for what happened after, I suggest that IDers produce their own research validating an intelligent designer creating life while evolutionary scientists work on it from a non-design angle - whoever gets there first wins!

Glad to see there will be no more posts talking about the problems of evolution after the first life(s) were created.

Dazza:It's only Origin of Life issues where ID and evolutionary theory part ways?

Ya see Dazza, it's like this:

If living organisms didn't arise from non-living matter via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker-type, processes, then there would be no reason to infer the subsequent diversity of said living organisms arose solely due to those types of processes.

IOW if living organisms were designed then the inference would be they were also designed to evolve.

Dazza:Then I think we are more in agreement than I first thought - neither you nor I know how life originated and, as you so rightly pointed out, this is what science should help us to do.

Again how living organisms originated directly impacts any subsequent evolution.

Dazza:But since we both agree that evolution is responsible for what happened after, I suggest that IDers produce their own research validating an intelligent designer creating life while evolutionary scientists work on it from a non-design angle - whoever gets there first wins!

And science has already demonstrated that only life begets life.

Also RNA and DNA consist of nucleotides. Nucleotides only exist in living organisms!

Dazza:Glad to see there will be no more posts talking about the problems of evolution after the first life(s) were created.

Also RNA and DNA consist of nucleotides. Nucleotides only exist in living organisms!

Uh-oh - sounds like your designer is in for some serious trouble. If only life begets life, ID is in exactly the same quandry as evolution. Either the designer is alive and therefore must have been designed ad infinitum or it's not alive and hence is a case of non-life creating life. On the other hand we could suppose that life may come from non-life (even though we haven't observed it), avoid the paradox, which leaves evolution and ID on the same initial footing. Add in the 150 odd years of papers supporting evolution and I think we have a win for the non-ID squad.

IOW we don't have any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms!

Again, this poses just as much of a problem for ID as evolution. Either you're telling me that the designer pre-programmed evolution into the first living thing (which you have absolutely NO proof for) or you are taking a Biblical literalist position and all animals were created by the Designer at once (which goes completely against everything we see in the fossil record). So are you going to make an unsupported assertion (which I know you hate) or will we have to start dicussing the feasibility of Noah's Ark?

Also RNA and DNA consist of nucleotides. Nucleotides only exist in living organisms!

Dazza:Uh-oh - sounds like your designer is in for some serious trouble.

Very doubtful.

Dazza:If only life begets life, ID is in exactly the same quandry as evolution.

Again you are obviously ignorant, ID is OK with evolution- evolution being a change in allele frequency, over time, within a population.

Also, as far as we know, the designer(s) is (are) life- life being one of the 4 fundamental entities along with matter, energy and information.

Dazza:Either the designer is alive and therefore must have been designed ad infinitum or it's not alive and hence is a case of non-life creating life.

No THAT is a logical fallacy!

Dazza:On the other hand we could suppose that life may come from non-life (even though we haven't observed it), avoid the paradox, which leaves evolution and ID on the same initial footing.

The alleged paradox only exists in your bitty little mind.

Dazza:Add in the 150 odd years of papers supporting evolution and I think we have a win for the non-ID squad.

There isn't any paper that supports the premise that all of the living organisms today owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms vua culled genetic accidents.

All papers dealing with biology and genetics supprt the premise of wobbling stability.

IOW we don't have any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms!

Dazza:Again, this poses just as much of a problem for ID as evolution.

No, it doesn't.

Dazza:Either you're telling me that the designer pre-programmed evolution into the first living thing (which you have absolutely NO proof for) or you are taking a Biblical literalist position and all animals were created by the Designer at once (which goes completely against everything we see in the fossil record).

As for "proof" you don't have squat. Not one thing, outside of the aforementioned wobbling stability, that evos spew can be objectively tested nor verified.

The fossil record doesn't help you. It certainly doesn't support the theory of evolution. For that you would need some actual biological data.

No one knows how the fossil record was formed. The fact that there are terrestrial fossils at all screams of catstrophies. And catatrophies argue against gradualism.

Dazza:So are you going to make an unsupported assertion (which I know you hate) or will we have to start dicussing the feasibility of Noah's Ark?

Read "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study".

As for unsupported assertions- it appears that is all you have.

You may want to believe in sheer dumb luck but until you can support it all you have is faith. And that is the topic of this thread- that evos are evos, not because of the data, but because of faith and faith alone.

Sterling stuff - no wonder scientists quake in your presence - who could possible contend with such well-argued viewpoints?!

You see, this is the exactly the reason why people that support the ID movement, like yourself, will never have any bearing on actual scitenific debate. Your arguments consist of already-refuted canards, whose refutations you merely close your ears to. When any problem is presented with your "theory", all you can say is "It's not a problem! You're stupid!"

Oh and thanks for admitting you believe in Noah's Ark as fact - care to elaborate on how we define "kinds"?

Thank you for admitting you know nothing about how education works. You would need a lesson plan to present material at a school.

The principal or district office would need to approve the content of your presentation.

Outside presenters supply lesson plans to clearly outline the education goals of the program and to tell exactly how it coordinates with state evaluation standards.

So, how about your lesson plan for showing The Privileged Planet?

As a little experiment try walking into your neighborhood school and giving any sort of program at all. It doesn't have to be your little film, try something more mainstream and uncontroversial. You'll find that you have to answer all the questions you're avoiding here. Not because you want to teach id in schools, but because you want to teach anything in schools.

blipey asserts:Thank you for admitting you know nothing about how education works.

Coming from a clown, a clue-less clown at that, that is a hollow statement.

The principal or district office would need to approve the content of your presentation.

OK.

As a little experiment try walking into your neighborhood school and giving any sort of program at all. It doesn't have to be your little film, try something more mainstream and uncontroversial. You'll find that you have to answer all the questions you're avoiding here. Not because you want to teach id in schools, but because you want to teach anything in schools.

But I have already made such a presentation. It went very well.

I guess I answered all their questions correctly. And guess what? I will be making more of such presentations.

BTW buttbreath I don't want to teach ID in schools. I just don't want dogma presented as reality especially when that dogma is obviouly nonsense.

Got any specifics that might, say, be on a quiz?

1) Is ID based on religion? (or is it religious/ a religion)

2) Is ID based on scientific data?

3) Is sheer dumb luck really a valid explanation for all we observe?

4) What predictions can be made from the design inference?

5) Is ID anti-evolution or anti-the blind watchmaker?

However this is moot and pretty much proves that Erik cannot follow along.

Each State in our United States of America has different rules pertaining to education.

And it is pretty much a given that a State on the east coast is not going to follow the example of Missouri.

IOW blipey what holds for MO does not have to be the case for other States.

Then there are ways around having to provide a lesson plan. One way is to approach teachers, principals and school board members and make the presentation to them. If it is good enough they will do the rest just to get you to make the same presentation to their students.

Just some evidence that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms...

But wait! You have previously said that evolution occurred after the noble designer put everything here - so you have exactly the same problem! You support your position that single-celled organisms can evolve into anything other than single-celled life OR that a designer put non-single celled organisms here, and we'll start talking - after all yours is the minorty view :)

And that is what science is for- to help us define those "kinds".

Really? Science is supposed to determine what the Bible was refrring to? I sort of thought that would be the realm of archaeology and/or theology. I wonder why everyone conflates ID with creationism?

One must take into consideration what it is I was responding to.

I know that is difficult for you but when one posts unsubstantiated nonsense those responses are appropriate

Ah well - then I shall just say to every point you make that "You're wrong!" This should perfectly refute your position, by your own standards, because, the ideas you have are "unsubstantiated nonsense" that require no detailed response. Hey! Maybe every scientist in the world could do that... imagine the progress we'd make if we all just shut our ears and said, "That's nonsense!" when someone disagrees.

But anyways try searching on "baraminology".

Hrm - I did and suprise (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology):

"Scientists consider Baraminology, like all of creation science, to be pseudoscience and unfit to be presented as science."

And what of the lack of papers demonstrating anything other than wobbling stability? And that lack of papers that would demonstrate any of the grand claims made by evolutionists surely should also count against it.

But I digress. Gonzalez has several papers that deal with the design inference. One is titled "Wonderful Eclipses", and was the impetus for "The Privileged Planet". That book also contains more of his published work that led him to the design inference.

Each State in our United States of America has different rules pertaining to education.

And it is pretty much a given that a State on the east coast is not going to follow the example of Missouri.

IOW blipey what holds for MO does not have to be the case for other States.

Then there are ways around having to provide a lesson plan. One way is to approach teachers, principals and school board members and make the presentation to them. If it is good enough they will do the rest just to get you to make the same presentation to their students.

Oh, Joe.

First. Care to let us know which Christian Private School you did your presentation for? That way we can call and check and see what was presented and how it went. If it did truly go well, then maybe we can book you in our schools.

Secondly, I have performed thousands of programs in schools in 46 states--including yours. I've performed for schools in all four of the big curriculum states. Do you know what those are? Do you know why they are relevant to this discussion?

I've performed for kindergartens, for middle schools, for high schools. I've taught classes in over a dozen states for 6 year olds and teenagers. If you're really interested, I can send you the materials. Just let me know, I'll email them to you.

You say you just have to ask the teacher. Great, that's true as far as it goes. But, he/she still has to present a lesson plan to the administration (part of their job and all). So, they may write it for you, but you still had to give them the info for it.

So, what is that specific info? If you don't have it, get it from the teacher at the school you presented at. They'll be happy to let you have a copy, especially if it went as well as you say it did. Teachers love good programs and share that info with their friends and colleagues.

For example, my show this past year received a 96% approval rating. Many of the schools I had not been at before have rebooked me-yes, because they thought it was entertaining, but also because the educational content and standards were set out, easy to use, and practical.

I'm not asking for anything that is any way controversial or even uncommon. Why is it that you can't provide a simple lesson plan?

Just some evidence that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms...

But wait! You have previously said that evolution occurred after the noble designer put everything here - so you have exactly the same problem!

I take it you aren't going to present the data I requested.

You support your position that single-celled organisms can evolve into anything other than single-celled life OR that a designer put non-single celled organisms here, and we'll start talking - after all yours is the minorty view :)

I don't hold that position. There isn't any science that would support that position.

And if the alleged majority view can't support their position it pretty much shows the majority is FoS.

And that is what science is for- to help us define those "kinds".

Really? Science is supposed to determine what the Bible was refrring to?

Science is supposed to help us figure out reality by any and all means possible.

I wonder why everyone conflates ID with creationism?

Not everyone. Only those who are ignorant of both conflate the two.

But anyways try searching on "baraminology".

Hrm - I did and suprise (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology):

No surprise. Wikipedia isn't known for its honesty and it definitely isn't an authority.

That would mean that even your position requires something beyond nature- ie supernatural.

What ID does say is that if the data leads us to the metaphysical then so be it. And I say well it pretty much has to. That is if natural processes only exist in nature (true) and therefore natural processes can't be responsible for the origin of nature.

The criteria for inferring design from the microscopic biological evidence is as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book [I]Darwin 's Black Box[/I]: [b]"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: [I]the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components[/I] "[/b] (emphasis added)

It does no such thing. The Court’s opinion ignores, both here and elsewhere, the distinction between an implication of a theory and the theory itself. As I testified, when it was first proposed the Big Bang theory struck many scientists as pointing to a supernatural cause. Yet it clearly is a scientific theory, because it is based entirely on physical data and logical inferences. The same is true of intelligent design.

I didn't claim that you said that was the ONLY way to get a program taught. You did claim that it would be as easy as, say, approaching a teacher. This is the portrayal of your statement that I have made.

If you were to approach a teacher, the rest of my argument follows. Stop avoiding the issue. What is the lesson plan? From you or the teacher, either one will do.

blipey:You did claim that it would be as easy as, say, approaching a teacher.

The following is what I said:

Then there are ways around having to provide a lesson plan. One way is to approach teachers, principals and school board members and make the presentation to them. If it is good enough they will do the rest just to get you to make the same presentation to their students.

Or could you be saying that there are definitely aliens out there that we have contacted and we know they design things?

No.

Beavers make dams.

Yes they do. Did you have a point?

My point is if we have never seen a beaver nor a beaver dam in our life AND had some education pertaining to what nature, operating freely is capable of, when we came upon our first beaver dam we would infer intentional design.

Only an imbecile or an evolutionist (hard to tell them apart) wouldn't infer design in that scenario.

My point is if we have never seen a beaver nor a beaver dam in our life AND had some education pertaining to what nature, operating freely is capable of, when we came upon our first beaver dam we would infer intentional design.

Why? In what way? What tools would we use to distinguish a beaver dam from nature? Give us the xact process by which we would conclude, without doubt, that it was designed.

My point is if we have never seen a beaver nor a beaver dam in our life AND had some education pertaining to what nature, operating freely is capable of, when we came upon our first beaver dam we would infer intentional design.

Why?

Because we don't have any experience with nature, operating freely, doing such a thing.

In what way?

One would notice counterflow is present.

What tools would we use to distinguish a beaver dam from nature?

Ummm a beaver dam is part of nature. However counterflow would lead us to the design inference.

However the tool to use is observation coupled with our current state of knowledge. IOW the explanatory filter could be used.

The teeth marks on the trees and the remaining tree trunks would be one observation.

Then there would be the well-placed mud.

Both are indicators of counterflow. However I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

And that inference could be falsified if we ever observed, for example, a landslide creating a similar structure. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that is how science operates.

So I take it you can't support the theory of evolution nor tell us why you are an evolutionist. Or is it that I am once again correct? That you are an evo because you are a blind follower of clueless scientists.

This is exciting. Please use the explanatory filter on this beaver dam example. Lay it out for us. You will be the first person to use the filter successfully. Ever. That has to be exciting. We're waiting.

Archaeologists have a fantastic grasp on what human beings have been able to do in the past. They have pretty good idea what the developmental progress of the human race has been. When they see something that has obvious use to a human being, they call "human design" on it and put it in a museum.

Your laying out of the EF consisted of:

1. Beaver Dam is seen.2. Haven't seen one before.3. So beaver dam was designed.

That's a really good use of the EF.

However, that would also work in this case:

1. Neat rock formation.2. Haven't seen it before.3. So rock formation is designed.

Your use of the clue "teeth marks" speaks to how we don;t look to nature to determine if a beaver built a dam.

1. We know that beavers have teeth.2. We see that there are teeth marks on the wood.3. We can propose that the beaver is responsible for the teeth marks.4. We then try to observe beavers in order to see if they do indeed make dams.

The key here is not that we observe nature, but that we observe beavers. We infer design after step 3 because of what we know about beavers. We then test this inference in step 4.

Artifacts are contrasted to natural objects; they are products of human actions.

This brings us back to how do we know that they are human made? See beaver example above.

Also:

When a person intends to make an object, his productive intention has as its content some description of the intended object: the agent intends to make an object of a certain kind. An author's intention “ties” to an artifact a number of predicates which determine the intended character of the object.

This speaks to how we identify artifacts by studying what the author's intention for the artifact was.

In fact, you should probably read the links you provide before actually providing them. That entire article really just supports my position that in order to study design, we need to know something about the designer.

Your use of the clue "teeth marks" speaks to how we don;t look to nature to determine if a beaver built a dam.

You are sooo stupid. It has NOTHING to do with beavers.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what nature, opertaing freely, can produce vs. what intelligent, designing agencies are capable of producing.

Counterflow is prettey much the same thing as work in the linked to article on artifacts. THAT is how artifactuality is determined- is it present or not.

With beaver dams it is present in the forms I have already mentioned.

It would not matter to the initial investigation who built it. Making that determination would take more research.

That entire article really just supports my position that in order to study design, we need to know something about the designer.

That's wrong. The only way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. If we already knew the designer we wouldn't have a design inference- design would be a given- duh.

And in the absence of direct observation or designer input we may never know the true intention but we can always make one up that suits us.

Stonehenge- don't know who designed it or why- yet we know it was designed, ie that nature, operating freely, did not put it there.

That alone refutes your nonsense and proves that you can see whatever you want in whatever you read.

Stonehenge is an artifact made by human beings. Which human beings? Don't know. Is it plausible to say it was made by humans, though? Yes. Why? We know that human beings have made calendars, astrolabes, religious icons, etc. Stonehenge very likely falls into one of these categories.

We have inferred design based on these things, not by looking at nature.

Otherwise we would have to infer that the potato which looks like Jimmy Carter is also designed. That is stupid.

If you want to differentiate the potato example from the Stonehenge one, you're going to have to provide the math. Please do.

JoeG: Yes, but we don't have any experience with humans building such structures (Stonehenge) over 4,000 years ago.

Wow. Pyramids? There are smaller stone structures found all over the world. Humans have ben moving stone around for quite some time, Joe. Yes even 5,000 years ago.

As for the potato as Nixon bit:

This is not qualitatively different than finding a ring of stones on the plains. They're both weird. They're both a little shocking. If all we have to do is look at what we know nature has done in the past, these are identical situations: nature has done neither--how do you propose we differentiate them? Do the math.

It isn't a nonsense scenario, doofus. Scenarios like it make local papers around the world on a weekly basis. The potato that looks like Nixon, the Frito that looks like Jesus, the pumpkin with face of John Lenon on it, the Virgin Mary appearing on a stone wall, etc.

The point is that nature can produce things that apparently have a lot of CSI (to use a stupid term). Why do we not conclude that these are designed by intelligence? Still waiting for the math.

You're goign to have to have a fool-proof, repeatable set of numbers that allow us to eliminate nature froim the equation. What are they?

You're goign to have to have a fool-proof, repeatable set of numbers that allow us to eliminate nature froim the equation.

If you had known anything about science you would have known that scientific inferences are tentative. IOW there isn't any "proof" and there isn't any "fool-proof" methods. But we do the best we can with the available data.

The point is that nature can produce things that apparently have a lot of CSI